So Phase-2 of India's human spaceflight program would focus on landing Indians on the Moon, using a newly developed Unified Modular Launch Vehicle (UMLV) architecture.

You can see that this architecture borrows both from Constellation and from Angara. It resembles Constellation by having the separate Crew Launch Vehicle and Cargo Launch Vehicle, like Ares-I and Ares-V. It resembles Angara in the sense of a modular design based on commonly used components that are recombined to make each of these distinct vehicles.

The key components of the UMLV family would be directly descended from those being piloted by the GSLV-Mk3, which India hopes to launch in 2011. These components are:- S230 solid rocket booster containing 230 tons of propellant- SC500 semi-cryogenic liquid engine with 500 tons of propellant- SC800 semi-cryogenic liquid engine with 800 tons of propellant

So admittedly, these are a lot of pieces that have to all work together successfully, but this modular approach is seen as the best way to keep costs down.

Hey, no bucks, no Buck Rogers - right?

The UMLV architecture will then provide the flexibility to meet a variety of payload requirements beyond just the requirements of the Crew Launch Vehicle (31 tons) and the Cargo Launch Vehicle (84 tons)

Again, this launch system would only be available for Phase-2 of India's Human Spaceflight program, whereas the first phase would be carried out using GSLV Mk-I and Mk-III, for India's version of the Mercury program.

This may sound a bit harsh, but I just don't get it why various countries are trying to repeat what the US and the USSR have already done back in the cold war fueled space race? I mean I can somehow understand why China wants to do it, but why India as well? Why not team up in an international effort? How does India even intend to pay for such an "Apollo on steroids" program?

Whatever, if commercial space companies can fulfill their promises during this decade than a program like this, that is supposed to not even start before 2020, will hopefully be obsolete anyway.

This may sound a bit harsh, but I just don't get it why various countries are trying to repeat what the US and the USSR have already done back in the cold war fueled space race? I mean I can somehow understand why China wants to do it, but why India as well? Why not team up in an international effort? How does India even intend to pay for such an "Apollo on steroids" program?

I guess you could think of it as a self-imposed 'right of passage' for these countries. the US did it, Russia almost did it (maybe did? lol depends on who you ask ) and probably could have. its a way to prove to themselves, and to show the world that they have "arrived" so to speak, and are now truley a world power. Its an act, though costly, will serve to inspire their people in ways they couldn't otherwise. Something they have to do for themselves as a country. Once the moon's been reached, international effort to somplace like Mars, i can see much more likely. But until then, they need to break their won trail, show they can do it themselves without depending on the US for example to get them off world. to say you are a country that set your feet and your flag into the lunar regolith is a pride that lasts and inspires for decades. Something i feel we've taken for granted and squandered here in the States.

I say hats off to them, and I truly hope they are successful in their endeavours.

Well, now that water's been discovered on the Moon, then it's a place where Man can settle and colonize, and not just plant flags and footprints. Note that India has boosted ISRO's funding by 60% immediately before the discovery of bulk lunar water ice went public. The Indian govt would have known about the imminent lunar water ice announcement, since the mini-SAR data was being shared jointly by NASA and ISRO, with members of both organizations jointly forming the investigative teams.

India is specifically looking at the Helium-3 that's present in trace amounts in the lunar regolith, because it could be used to generate aneutronic fusion energy. It's conceivable that the same surface climatology that has allowed water to accumulate in cold traps on the Moon has also allowed Helium-3 to be trapped as well. India wants to use the lunar Helium-3 to meet its energy needs. That's why they want to go straight to the Moon, instead of building space stations like Shenzhou, Mir, or SkyLab. India will likely build an orbital module to sustain its astronauts in space to learn more about the effects of that environment on them, but a key objective of the first phase of its Human Spaceflight program is to gain proficiency in orbital docking maneuvers, which are essential to going on to the Moon.

"Apollo on steroids" would involve dedicated purpose-built launch vehicles like Ares-1 and Ares-V, while India's planned UMLV architecture is quite different. The UMLV family of rockets was not conceived specifically to go to the Moon, but to provide India with a flexible, relatively low-cost launch capability covering the full payload range. However, the prominence of the Constellation program has obviously influenced the twin configurations of the Crew Launch Vehicle and the Cargo Launch Vehicle.

NASA's Bolden - in what looks to be a rearguard action - is now claiming that NASA's real goal is to go to Mars (funny how that wasn't specifically stated before, until Congressional criticism started to bite). If there's not enough money to do Constellation, I don't see how there's going to be enough money to do Mars. If he's pretending that somehow the mere passage of time will bring down the cost of a Mars mission, then he seems to be overlooking the need for focus and dedication which only a mission with a clearly defined structure, goals and deadlines can bring. Personally, I think that Obama's statement about leaving space to the private sector was just laissez-faire masquerading as policy. Hell, with only one or two customer launches, SpaceX hasn't really even gotten rolling yet, but Obama's ready to let them inherit the store, without even any reasonable transition period or trial proving period.

The Moon is a more realizable goal than Mars is. Some people talk about the Moon as if it's old hat, but we've hardly even scratched its surface yet. Now we know that it has water ice too. There is much fresh exploration that can be done on the Moon, to reveal many new and useful secrets. It may not have an atmosphere like Mars does, but there's not much that can be done with that Martian atmosphere at this point. It's not like there's any chance of terraforming the place with our current technology. Right now, the Moon has everything that Mars has to offer, and more. It's much more within reach, and that's why NASA ought to go back there first. Better an "Apollo on Steroids" than a failed pipe dream.

Oh, I also think the Russians have the best idea - to create a robotic "base" or hub on the Moon, where tele-operated robots can be used to best explore the lunar environment and make use of its natural resources.

Personally, I don't even think you need any fancy AI. Just use conventional remote control, and learn how to operate with the 4-second lightspeed delay. It's simpler and cheaper.

This can be used to lay the groundwork in advance of any manned settlement.

Last edited by sanman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well I'm not from the States and to be honest I have never been very good at grasping that whole "national pride" thingy... to me this is an outdated concept...

When the Russians put the first man in orbit, they excited (or better to say "shocked") the whole world.

When the US put men on the Moon, they inspired the whole world.

Yes, it was a monumental effort and the US have every right in the world to be proud of it, but if history would have taken a slightly different course it could just as well have been another nation. Yes, the US did it, however i think it is something that WE all together as a species have achieved, it was just the US that had the political will to pay for it.

And that is my BIG problem with the plans of China and India: they don't do it to inspire people, they don't do it to prove it can be done, they may say that it is to create jobs, but in the end they just do it so they can tell themselves how "great" a nation they are afterwards

If they want to get independent access to LEO, that's fine with me. I think that is something that indeed is necessary to show the other spacefaring nations "look, we have everything we need to play our own game here if we want" - that is also the reason why Europe should develop a manned "spaceship" of some sort ASAP.Once you have that capability it doesn't really make a lot of sense for every one to go to other destinations on their own, because of the huge costs of such an undertaking. And personally I think it would be a bad thing to do from a social/political standpoint to explore/settle the solar system as "nations". I honestly believe that we should only do this together. Maybe not the whole world is ready for this yet, but certain parts are (r at least should be). Get all those together (and let the door open for anyone who is "ready" to join) and come up with a plan for a bigger and better ISS2, for an international station in lunar orbit, an international lunar outpost and beyond...

But I guess that's just me daydreaming again...

@ sanman because you posted while I was writing my post:

Quote:

but a key objective of the first phase of its Human Spaceflight program is to gain proficiency in orbital docking maneuvers, which are essential to going on to the Moon.

That's not only a key for going to the moon, that is a key requirement of ANY advanced space program and I have no problem with India trying to achieve that goal.

Also I don't have a problem with their proposed UML architecture, it looks to be a quite reasonable path forward from their upcoming GSLV-mkIII, but if you are honest you have to agree, that they aren't developing anything really new, they are just repeating things that have already been done in some way or another. We don#t need another big booster design, we need new and more efficient ways to get to LEO, THAT would truly inspire some people.

Quote:

Hell, with only one or two customer launches, SpaceX hasn't really even gotten rolling yet, but Obama's ready to let them inherit the store, without even any reasonable transition period or trial proving period.

What's the alternative? Continue to fly the shuttles until every single one of them breaks apart due to their age?Build some Ares or Jupiter launchers? By the time they are ready, SpaceX will either have a long record of successful flights or should they fail there will probably be some other company ready by the same time Ares/Jupiter gets off ground...The only remaining reasonable option would be to keep Orion and start adapting Delta-IV or Atlas-V to launch it, but that would still more ore less stay in that same "let commercial space do the LEO-taxi business" as they intend to go anyway.

Regarding remote controlled robots: NASA plans to do the same in the next 1000 days - just google "project M" or head over to the Armadillo Aerospace Q&A thread, because apparently they seem to be involved in that affair

Certainly India and China are doing it to inspire their people. When the first Shenzhou mission went up, Chinese were absolute enraptured by it. When Chandrayaan went to the Moon, Indians were thrilled. Americans may feel unimpressed by such things, but that's because these are routine to them. Meanwhile, you can't just expect other nations to jump into some advanced stage beyond existing spaceflight accomplishments, without going through the existing accomplishments first. You've gotta walk before you can run. I don't see how you expect anyone to do differently. Note that the Russian, Chinese and Indian programs are markedly different in their approaches than NASA, so they are bringing their own distinct flavors to the table.

As for which nations proclaim they're "great", etc, I think you have a selective reading of history.

I can't see what benefit there would be in ISS2 - being in lunar orbit instead of Earth orbit isn't going to let your astronauts do any better spaceflight experiments, and meanwhile a lunar orbital station would be harder to re-supply. Better to have a lunar base on the ground, where you're exploring the lunar terrain itself directly.

Big boosters are currently the most efficient way to get to LEO. The most economical way might be scramjets, imho, because scramjets can tap the much cheaper and broader market for intercontinental travel. India is trying to develop a hypersonic Reusable Launch Vehicle which would be developed into a 2-stage-to-orbit launch system to take lighter payloads to LEO.

Different players in the space market can't just automatically try to be different just for the sake of being different. After all, everyone has to bow to the same common universal laws of physics. Physics may ultimately force everyone to go the same route and take similar approaches, rather than being novel and different all the time.

Yes, the Shuttle program should be extended until SpaceX proves itself, along with Orbital Sciences. And btw, I don't see any other players in the market besides those two - and even Orbital Sciences doesn't have any heavier lifting designs. So if you're stuck with only one or two suppliers, then you're going to end up with a private monopoly or duopoly situation, which is not going to bring prices down. If anything, private monopolies are the worst of all worlds, where the profit motive and the monopoly add up to major price hikes very quickly. Why would SpaceX keep their prices down, if they're the only game in town? It's also worth noting that space veterans like Boeing and Lockheed aren't exactly trying to beat SpaceX into the launch business. I think they understand how difficult that market can be, and what it would mean for their businesses. It's not like you can market your services to anybody off the street.

This "Project M" which you speak of proposes to put robot avatars on the Moon within 1000 days of approval. That's not a commitment, that's a proposal. Gee, I hope it gets approved, but that's not a concrete scheduled mission yet.

Certainly India and China are doing it to inspire their people. When the first Shenzhou mission went up, Chinese were absolute enraptured by it. When Chandrayaan went to the Moon, Indians were thrilled. Americans may feel unimpressed by such things, but that's because these are routine to them. Meanwhile, you can't just expect other nations to jump into some advanced stage beyond existing spaceflight accomplishments, without going through the existing accomplishments first. You've gotta walk before you can run. I don't see how you expect anyone to do differently. Note that the Russian, Chinese and Indian programs are markedly different in their approaches than NASA, so they are bringing their own distinct flavors to the table.

once again: I'm not an American, I don't even come from a country that has any significant space development going on (be it government or private). But hey... looks like Austria has the major task of providing the blankets that cover satellite containers... :p

Quote:

As for which nations proclaim they're "great", etc, I think you have a selective reading of history.

Maybe it's the language barrier but I don't really get your point...

Quote:

I can't see what benefit there would be in ISS2 - being in lunar orbit instead of Earth orbit isn't going to let your astronauts do any better spaceflight experiments, and meanwhile a lunar orbital station would be harder to re-supply. Better to have a lunar base on the ground, where you're exploring the lunar terrain itself directly.

ISS is just a simple first step, if we want to reach destinations far away then it would be a very good thing to actually have bigger space stations, that handle departure/arrival in addition to science. For example if you go to the moon it is just stupid to take your reentry-capsule all the way with you.

Quote:

Big boosters are currently the most efficient way to get to LEO. The most economical way might be scramjets, imho, because scramjets can tap the much cheaper and broader market for intercontinental travel. India is trying to develop a hypersonic Reusable Launch Vehicle which would be developed into a 2-stage-to-orbit launch system to take lighter payloads to LEO.

(E)ELVs are not really efficient by any metric. If someone can come up with a Big-RLV-Booster than I would be all for it. Looks like nobody outside SpaceX currently even intends to build a booster that can be reused. (I'm not saying that SpaceX is actually achieving that goal, but at least they intend to)

Quote:

Different players in the space market can't just automatically try to be different just for the sake of being different. After all, everyone has to bow to the same common universal laws of physics. Physics may ultimately force everyone to go the same route and take similar approaches, rather than being novel and different all the time.

That may be true, but "we" have tried by far too few approaches yet to say "hey we know for sure that this is the only way to do it".

Quote:

Yes, the Shuttle program should be extended until SpaceX proves itself, along with Orbital Sciences. And btw, I don't see any other players in the market besides those two - and even Orbital Sciences doesn't have any heavier lifting designs. So if you're stuck with only one or two suppliers, then you're going to end up with a private monopoly or duopoly situation, which is not going to bring prices down. If anything, private monopolies are the worst of all worlds, where the profit motive and the monopoly add up to major price hikes very quickly. Why would SpaceX keep their prices down, if they're the only game in town? It's also worth noting that space veterans like Boeing and Lockheed aren't exactly trying to beat SpaceX into the launch business. I think they understand how difficult that market can be, and what it would mean for their businesses. It's not like you can market your services to anybody off the street.

Maybe here you have some selective view of the situation. If you look at the worldwide situation, not just the US, than there is quite a lot of competition in the launch market: ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, Russia, Arianespace, Japan, India... and I'm not even sure if I have listed all the countries that already have launch capabilities, not to mention all involved companies.

SpaceX may very well end up as the first commercial crew-to-LEO provider, but certainly won't be the last or only one.

While I'm already quite sad about the end of the shuttle program (it's an end of an era and a dream, just as it was the case with the Concorde), I don't think it would be wise to continue. It should have been replaced by something more modern a looong time ago, but that's no excuse for keeping it alive now no matter the costs.

Quote:

This "Project M" which you speak of proposes to put robot avatars on the Moon within 1000 days of approval. That's not a commitment, that's a proposal. Gee, I hope it gets approved, but that's not a concrete scheduled mission yet.

Yeah right, like the Russian space program has any concrete schedules about that. Right now they don't even know when their new spaceport and the Angara fleet/family will be ready (with the bigger concerns on the spaceport side)

once again: I'm not an American, I don't even come from a country that has any significant space development going on (be it government or private). But hey... looks like Austria has the major task of providing the blankets that cover satellite containers...:p

On the contrary, Austrians are known for their quality, if not their quantity (ie. Austria may not have hundreds of millions of people to fund big-ticket projects, but in the endeavours it does do, it's known for its quality undertakings.)

Quote:

Maybe it's the language barrier but I don't really get your point...

I'm saying that every country crows about its national achievements, whether in Olympics, space, or otherwise. India has recently begun crowing about its space achievements, mainly in terms of their low cost, which does offer some practical advantages. The entire Chandrayaan-1 mission cost $75M, and that's a cost spread across 10 years - <$8M/yr - and even most of that was in building fixed infrastructure like dish antenna networks, etc which will be reused for future missions.

Quote:

ISS is just a simple first step, if we want to reach destinations far away then it would be a very good thing to actually have bigger space stations, that handle departure/arrival in addition to science. For example if you go to the moon it is just stupid to take your reentry-capsule all the way with you.

I think bigger space stations are just more overhead. You don't need to station people out in space permanently, where they need to be looked after at high cost and have everything shipped out to them, since there's nothing immediately on hand.A lunar base, on the other hand, can harvest resources from that very large celestial body, with the hope of sustaining itself. Granted, there would be a long bootstrap period, but the Moon has resources it could trade back in return - like Helium3.

Quote:

(E)ELVs are not really efficient by any metric. If someone can come up with a Big-RLV-Booster than I would be all for it. Looks like nobody outside SpaceX currently even intends to build a booster that can be reused. (I'm not saying that SpaceX is actually achieving that goal, but at least they intend to)

The Space Shuttle was supposed to be a big reusable launch vehicle - hence the name. But of course it didn't actually turn out that way, which is a great tragedy for US space interests. The more complex the system, the less reusable it actually turns out to be, apparently. Spaceflight is a very punishing activity, and this hurts reusability the most. The SR-71 was the highest flying manned vehicle with the longest record of reusability, but it never had to take the punishment that the Space Shuttle or space capsules do.

Is it possible to design some idealized vehicle that is simultaneously reusable, reliable, robust, capable, strong and light all at the same time?Oh, and let's not forget affordable. If you can't afford the wonder-vehicle, then it's a no-go anyway.

Quote:

That may be true, but "we" have tried by far too few approaches yet to say "hey we know for sure that this is the only way to do it".

You're right, and that's why the more players there are, the better the chance of seeing different design decisions come to fruition. But the expense factor is such that most players want to try the tried-and-true way, rather than risking their efforts on unknown and untested ideas. Countries like China and India are at least learning to avoid the "white elephant" pitfalls like the Space Shuttle, which soaked up so much of NASA's resources and turned into a jobs program. The Soviets, who were in the game much earlier, did fall for trying to imitate the Shuttle, but Russia seems unlikely to do so again.

Quote:

Maybe here you have some selective view of the situation. If you look at the worldwide situation, not just the US, than there is quite a lot of competition in the launch market: ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, Russia, Arianespace, Japan, India... and I'm not even sure if I have listed all the countries that already have launch capabilities, not to mention all involved companies.

SpaceX may very well end up as the first commercial crew-to-LEO provider, but certainly won't be the last or only one.

While I'm already quite sad about the end of the shuttle program (it's an end of an era and a dream, just as it was the case with the Concorde), I don't think it would be wise to continue. It should have been replaced by something more modern a looong time ago, but that's no excuse for keeping it alive now no matter the costs.

I agree that the "white elephant" has to be phased out. It's just that the Shuttle program could have gone on for a few years more until SpaceX et al really proved themselves. It seems that not enough attention was paid to how the US would transition itself away from the Shuttle program, which was only supposed to have a lifespan of 25 years. All the planned successor projects, X-33 VentureStar, etc fizzled.

Quote:

Yeah right, like the Russian space program has any concrete schedules about that. Right now they don't even know when their new spaceport and the Angara fleet/family will be ready (with the bigger concerns on the spaceport side)

True enough, they don't have a mission that they've announced, but they have stated their agenda is to create a hub for automated exploration of the Moon.NASA - or more precisely, Obama - is now unfortunately waffling, trying to duck away from the Moon, coyly suggesting Mars, in what seems to be a procrastinating kick-the-can-down-the-road scheme. (ie. "I don't have anything for you today, but if you wait awhile, I'll have something really great for you tomorrow!")Nah, this just looks like a clever-by-half way of ducking out of spaceflight, so that he can turn back to his deeper passion for funding soup kitchens and building highways to create jobs for ditch-diggers and other unskilled blue-collar voters who elected him.

While SpaceX has moved with impressive speed to develop its rockets - not without substantial NASA help, I'm sure - the question is, can the market sustain it? They may be fast out of the starting gate, but can they keep evolving with similarly impressive speed as time goes on? Will the market keep them sailing along? It's one thing for Americans and their politicians to get behind a Shuttle that has an entrenched jobs base, but would SpaceX get similar political backing to send cashflow its way?

I don't see Lockheed and Boeing rushing into the market. Meanwhile, ESA, Russia, China and India are increasing their offerings and grabbing market share.

Another reason why India wants to go to the Moon is to elevate its brand, and to be known as a nation that can do high-technology, rather than being seen as just a bunch of snake-charmers. Nothing attracts prospects and partners like success, so landing on the Moon isn't just an exercise in crowing, but also in building credibility.

Having a large population with a low average age and untapped economic potential, India feels its best economic growth years are ahead of it. It then feels confident in embarking on a big trek to the Moon, especially with ISRO linking the Moon to future energy resources. For a country that doesn't win a lot of Olympic medals or international competitions, there is a lure of glory in space milestones which bask in the glow of the Apollo era as high watermarks in human achievement.

I must say I am greatly enjoying reading the banter between you two. Greatly informative, and wonderful to read the enthusiasm. Where I'm from, the attitudes are a bit more... abismal. the unknown future and waffling from the government has put a lot of us ill at ease.

sanman wrote:

Nah, this just looks like a clever-by-half way of ducking out of spaceflight, so that he can turn back to his deeper passion for funding soup kitchens and building highways to create jobs for ditch-diggers and other unskilled blue-collar voters who elected him.

Dude.... that seriously made me chuckle. the Obamanator has never had an interest in manned space flight. If i remember, one of his early campaign promises was to kill the program. as for the rest of the quote...lol don't you mean the "jobs" that they've "created" in all those "districts" that somehow don't actually exist? but.... that is way off topic so let me get back on track.

Marcus Zottl wrote:

For example if you go to the moon it is just stupid to take your reentry-capsule all the way with you.

I thought the same thing once myself. But what happens if you have another Apollo13 type incedent, or Columbia, where the vehicle is damaged beyond repair and the crews are ina situation where they need to re-enter ASAP. It would be nice if they could just rendevous with the station, hopp on a capsule and come home every time. though there may be an instance where they can't dock with the station (fuel leak, damage, etc.) so a contigency will always need to be there. Expensive in both cost (monetary and weight) but necessary

sanman wrote:

Nothing attracts prospects and partners like success, so landing on the Moon isn't just an exercise in crowing, but also in building credibility.

makes sense to me. In this world of media and product bombardment, you have to do something big and noisy to get noticed and to break yourself out of the stereotypes that others palce you in.

If Obama is really going to vault NASA ahead with some revolutionary jumps in technology, then I hope it works. But it seems more realistic to believe that technology is more likely to advance incrementally, and not always through radical jumps.

At the very least, it doesn't seem prudent to be without a successor for the manned Shuttle for so long.

Note that India's planned Crew Launch Vehicle and Cargo Launch Vehicle are 1650 and 3075 tons respectively. These are some heavy masses - that last one is on the order of a Saturn-V. It looks like ISRO is planning to make heavy use of SRBs, but obviously the liquid stages are going to have to be able to develop some major thrust to loft up payloads of this magnitude.

Likewise, China's investigation into building its moon rocket show that it's not going to settle for a string of Long March 5 launches for any lunar mission, and would want something with higher thrust to cut down the number of launches.